[REBOL] Re: Some thoughts around Rebol
From: carl:rebol at: 15-Apr-2001 10:45
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
> Rod Gaither
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:25 AM
> To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> Subject: [REBOL] Re: Some thoughts around Rebol
> Hi Robert!
> >Hi there, while reading through most of the postings and observing RT
> >progress to a complete product strategie I'm always thinking about some
> >stuff, which is needed to make Rebol a "professional" tool (that a big
> >company is going to use it):
> This is going to be a hard thing for REBOL.
> 1. Big companies buy "applications" not technology platforms.
That's ok. Big companies don't start revolutions like the Web, email,
net news, the Internet, personal computing, new countries, etc.
Big companies lag, which is good, because it gives revolutionaries
ground to work. :-)
> 2. But, they buy those "applications" only for technology platforms
> they have heard of - unless no other solution exists. :-(
Yes, and in 1992, how many heard of the Web? By 1995, how many
were on the web? Things change... and even big companies change
over time. If not, they die (or at least lose significant market
REBOL accomplishes something that the Web also offered. Smaller
is better. There were many solutions like the Web prior to it,
but the web passed them all.
If, for instance, I wrote the SalesForce.com ASP in REBOL, it would
work much better than the current web based model. I could write it
in a few weeks - one person. If I were in that business, I would
have a significant competitive advantage over SalesForce.com.
> 3. There has been some serious consolidation in the "application"
> product space that leaves big companies only buying from other
> big companies. It is getting harder, and harder for a vertical or niche
> application to make it big in those companies.
Again, that's ok. It's human nature. Big companies don't start new
directions. They are not our target customers - early adopters are.
> 4. Even in the application "Hosting" space it is a hard sell without
> dropping the name of the technology under it - Oracle, Java, ...
> >1. Storage Formats
> >I would like to see RT to adapt XML as the generic storage format for all
> >kind of data. Rod Gaither just answered to Carl why he is going
> to use XML.
> >I fully agree with Rod. To use Rebol in a corporate environment it is
> >mandatory to support "standards" and using XML seems to be a good way.
You are free to use it, but not all of us will, because not all of us
have the time or money to deal with it. REBOL data formats are much
more lean and easier to handle. They can be converted to XML and
back. XML is good. REBOL is good. Don't get me wrong.
> Thanks for the prop. :-)
> The XML support should be visible, but not a replacement. It is too big
> to do all the way and too much of a distraction to the REBOL core goals
> to make a central aspect. It does need to be WAY better than it is with
> the current product though which barely counts as an after thought. :-)
Ah, yes... REBOL/Command/XML.... that's the way.